On ClimateGate
 | | D'oh! |
It's a sad day for science. Regular readers of my blog might expect me to be happy about the news that proof has arisen that certain scientific organizations have been deliberately manipulating data, thwarting the peer review process, and smearing fellow scientists when it comes to anthropogenic global warming, but I am not happy about it. Yes, it is a vindication of many of the things I have written, but at the same time, it illustrates how science itself, something I cherish and admire, can be horrifically abused.
"ClimateGate" (as it's being called now) started when hackers broke into the data files of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit and stole a bunch of e-mails. It is regrettable that such illegal activity is the cause of this, but since the e-mails clearly show that the "scientists" at the CRU were more willing to destroy data than share it in accordance with Freedom of Information, perhaps illegal means were the only ones that could get at the truth.
Anyway, the e-mails in question are largely benign in nature, though surprisingly hostile towards skeptics. I won't give direct quotes (go to The Washington Times, The Telegraph, or Watt's Up With That?), but I will say there are several calls for violence where skeptical journalists and fellow scientists are involved. However, that is not really a problem, nor is it unexpected as I imagine off-the-cuff personal e-mails are like that whenever it comes to issues of passion. How many Democrats were wishing violence on President Bush--and how many Republicans are wishing violence on Nancy Pelosi--in their outbox?
 | | Uh, I don't have anything to say about this picture |
But as you read more and more of these e-mails, you come to understand that the "scientists" at the CRU--and by proxy, the UN's IPCC--deliberately withheld scientific data from peers and made concerted efforts to boycott and shut down entire publications that dared publish anything skeptical of the anthropogenic global warming dogma. This is where science is so painfully abused, because in doing this, they have gone against the very nature and intent of scientific inquiry. They have let politics and passions get in the way of the truth, and in the entire history of the world, this has never been a good thing.
Let me be clear here: none of this is proof for or against the anthropogenic global warming theory. All this is is evidence that certain facts have been ignored in the over-eager race to affect public policy on the basis of fear and arrogance rather than real science. This is evidence that certain scientists have no faith in the public to interpret data for themselves and see what they believe to be the obvious truth, even if the so-called scientists have to doctor it up to make it obvious. This is, in a word, a travesty.
There is no excuse for this kind of anti-scientific behavior, but it doesn't stop them from trying to come up with one. The bullies--with red hands--say that they were justified in shutting out scientific publications because those publications were becoming too activist (in other words, they dared to voice the possibility that maybe one part of the anthropogenic global warming theory should be re-examined). They go on to say that when they use the word "trick" to describe the manipulation of data, they are only talking about math. Yes, certain scientists have described mathematics as trickery, most notably Richard Feynmann, but if you put the word in context here, there is no way that's what they meant. And the fact that they withheld or destroyed evidence in direct defiance of Freedom of Information? They say they are not accountable for that because they report to an international body--the IPCC--and are immune from such petty laws.
 | | Pictured: the IPCC |
Even if you believe the anthropogenic global warming theory to be utterly true, you should be outraged. Outraged! This is fraud, pure and simple, and it's evidence of a massive cover-up within the scientific community. How can you be anything but outraged? Science is supposed to be above such tactics.
But you can put away all of their unsatisfactory justifications, because the real reason they did what they did is much simpler: fear. Those who have become advocates for the cause believe that they have to do whatever it takes to save the world. These Jack Bauers of the climate industry think that it's okay to go against your ethics if it means stopping a coming apocalypse. If the manmade global warming theory is right on all counts, maybe they're right too, but we can't really know, because we are no longer in possession of all the facts. They destroyed evidence, and the only reason they did it is because they believed the evidence was good enough to help the skeptics but not good enough to change their own minds. They freely admit this in the e-mails!
Modern journalists are the same way, but their behavior has been far better documented over the last decade. There have been seminars where important men and women got in front of throngs of fellow writers and told them that the potential consequences of anthropogenic global warming were so great that they needed to ignore any news story or source who questions it while eagerly publishing any story--no matter how ludicrous--that supports the doctrine. Newspapers, magazines, and journals that didn't tow this line were shunned and ridiculed and had their advertisers bullied into pulling out. These mafia tactics are the reason why few news outlets (with notable exceptions) were willing to question anthropogenic global warming until now.
 | | This is what happens to those who question manmade global warming |
The other reason why this is a sad state of affairs is that it won't change any minds. Those who believe in anthropogenic global warming will write this off as the unfortunate behavior of a few rogues (despite the very real probability that many more climate researchers are behaving this way), and will still look at the skeptics as hopeless deniers whose grasp of reality is clearly more flawed than their own. In the end, this will not change the push to curb greenhouse gas emissions by legislators the world over, and I'm sure we can look forward to some serious preaching and condescension from our own president in the near future. If anything, this will strengthen the resolve of those attending the Copenhagen conference next month, and the whole truth will continue to be ignored and ridiculed for political reasons.
So while I'm happy that a few bad scientists were caught, I'm sad that it happened and even sadder that it will continue to happen. Far be it for me to endorse illegal behavior, but here's hoping the hackers who exposed the CRU step up their game and attack more climate research institutes across the globe. Only then will people really start to see the full size and breadth of the conspiracy, and only then will a few people be brave enough to change their minds.
-e. magill 11/24/2009
|
|
